The Perfect First Question. by T H Ray

ignore them, it is easy to say. I am conscient of my discovery Tom like all rationalists having a little of determinism.

The potential at short, middle and long term is so important that my words are logic.

Try to enjoy life , it is easy to say also. You have not had my difficult life,and you have not been always too nice like me. The human nature is bizare and full of vanity. It is a sad reality. I know that my theory is revolutionary and I know that it exists bizare systems without faith and laws. I know that it exists stealers and bad people.I know that the human nature is sad. Perhaps it is not from FQXi , but in all case , it is like that since that I speak about my theory 7 or 8 years ago on the net. I can understand that my theory is revolutionary and that it is the real toe, but frankly it is sad all this story.

Tom , why they make that.Why ? just for this vanity and this monney ??? Why ?

The sciences are not a simple play.The physics merit more than this simple meaning. The theory of game perhaps can imply several catalyzations but frankly it is bizare.

"I would have used Joy's treatment of the Dirac belt trick in its classical framework, to explain how the complete (4 pi) rotation is angle preserving (conformal) to infinity."

I hope you do sometime. Your breadth and depth are amazing!

James

Thanks, James. Honestly, though, it is only in the last couple of years that these disjointed elements of knowledge acquired over many years have come together in a meaningful way. I think it shows the power of one great idea to make sense of a thousand little ones -- I hadn't imagined, and I know of no one else who had imagined, that topology -- through application of continuous global properties and patterns of a compact space, could describe discrete local measurement results without a probabilistic structure.

With the greatest demonstration of intellectual courage, Joy has blazed a trail for us through this thick wilderness where no one else dared to go. Long after the controversy is forgotten and buried, this idea will still be affecting fields of science from cosmology on one extreme, to brain mechanics and consciousness on the other.

Tom

Good work Tom!

I've been a fan of your work for way too many years & this does not disappoint - both content & style. Very impressive. I'm hungry or more!

-C

Hello Thomas glad you participated again in this year's contest.

And I am very glad you are Alive - as you have proven mathematically beyond any reasonable doubt !! If you follow my argument in Q6 of my present FQXI paper, based on older arguments in my papers referred to therin, you will see that I believe that quantum probability is a mathematical interpretation of a very unprobabilistic local, causal world of wave-like diffusion in a universal lattice In other words in EPR and Bell the photons have identical phase from start to finish, but it is the random state of the detectors that create the illusion of probability.

For this reason although I could see how deeply and learnedly you have gone into these questions, I do not want to take that route myself. I would like to learn about Poincare's circle, though - I have renewed respect for his ideas - and will google accordingly. Thanks and good luck.

Vladimir

Dear Thomas

Yes I know the Escher circle you mean - he is great. Thanks for the link to the Poincare geometry - I do not know if this is significant in any way but in Fig. 9.2 all the construction circles on the tangent are bow waves see my Bow Wave paper here - these waves are the same shape as far-field dipole wavefronts as described in my United Dipole Field paper linked from the same page. I have argued for having the electric field in these waves as the source of quantum probability - in other words quantum effects are due to the spread of real dipole bow waves in the ether. Easy to say and looks good in a diagram (attached diagram from my Beautiful Universe paper), but of course to prove it convincingly (or disprove it?) is not that easy!

I will have to study Joy's work. I am not saying a probabilistic interpretation does not work as a mathematical nuts-and-bolts method to describe physical situations, but that this 'probability' is an outcome of an ordered, local, causal process. Thanks again for appreciating my art. My physics needs some more work!

Cheers. VladimirAttachment #1: BUFIG28.jpg

Tom

I congratulate you on an excellently written essay but even better content. It seems I'd misjudged you as a reactionary, probably my fault by not admitting to 'knowing' anything, leading you to 'direct me' back to a quagmire I'd just spent years rising above! But I see you can be very open minded and reject majority 'wisdom' when appropriate. The work certainly deserves a much better score than at present.

I like your fresh view that it's the 'Bellites' who are determinist, and of questioning the assumption that reality is (only) observer created. I also noted your post about better understanding of Georgina's thesis of two apparent 'realities', each observers being only subjective.

I extend this to derive two distinct classes of observation. One by direct detection or (particle coupling) interaction with the phenomena being measured, and a different 'apparent only' class equivalent to Minkowski's "imaginary c+v" (1908). The mechanism is explored in detail but an analogy is TV i.e. The Enterprise taking off at warp 3, (or as I said to Paul, the Keystone cops dong 100mph). They all have a secondary mechanism in between the original reality and the detection, but the real signals to and from the TV all do c. Only one uses 'Proper Time', and gets the real result 'c'. I quote Lorentz expressing his doubt about 'excluding' this apparent c+v in 1913.

This physical analysis using quantum logic turns out very analogous to your metaphysical approach supporting Joys mathematical one. Even down to the 'handedness', which is evident in Chirality, IFR, and the orientation of the CMB anisotropic flow of Smoot etc. A wide range of astronomical anomalies are resolved including ballistic free relativistic stellar aberration matching observation which the IAU have been seeking since abandoning the 'constant' in 2000, and resolving the outstanding ecliptic plane issue.

I do hope you find time to read mine and can spot the consistencies, if from a totally different viewpoint. It is dense and probably tries to explain too much as it will test any intellect. 'Kinetic thinking' is unfamiliar. I've put in in a slightly theatrical setting to lighten up the read a little. I greatly look forward to your views.

Best of luck

Peter

Tom:

You've done a wonderful job with this abstract topic. Due to the subject nature, and my lack of familiarity in the area (which I want to remedy!), I've found your essay challenging each time I read it---but, those limitations aside, I thought you did an excellent job of presenting an enjoyable, even poetic argument, in which a number of interesting bits fall neatly in line.

Good luck!

Daryl

Dear Thomas for some reason I missed seeing your comment on my page till today, and have answered there - sorry for the delay. I value your opinions.

Vladimir

Steve, you wrote in Ronald Bennett's forum, to which I offered to reply here:

"Indeed Tom , but apparently a lot of scientists do not really love the critics. Tom, could you help me to be accepted in an university in USA? I d like have my doctorate in physics. I could imrpove my works.I d like also learn engeniering and computing. I do not know all you know Tom, I have never said that I knew all.I am arrogant indeed but you know I am just a young searcher wanting to be recognized for his researchs and wanting to learn more in the good universities with the good mentors and professors. I have found an improtant thing Tom, you know it, I d like learn more and I d like test my models and inventions with good partners. Belgium is frustrating. Ihave already had a business angel from Paris, I must admit that I am a little parano.

I d like find the good university. I have always dreamed to learn in an american university.Like I have already explained, I was in geology at the FNDP of Namur Belgium. But I have had neurological probelms.It was difficult you know after.I have learned by myself. I have always this dream you know.

Regards "

LOL! I'm not an academic, Steve. I couldn't get you into Barber College. I do know something about neurological deficiency, however, having only fairly recently surmised that my lifelong dyslexia probably originates from an auto accident between ages 3 and 4. A bad one -- infant brother killed, mother and stepfather seriously injured -- though it appeared that I was the lucky one, having only been thrown from the vehicle, knocked unconscious and suffered a wound to the back of the head that was closed with a few stitches. I have learned that it coincides with the part of the brain that controls language skills.

I went through a childhood of isolation, with difficulties in speech, reading and comprehension. I tried to compensate by reading material over and over -- sometimes I would take away an entirely different meaning from one reading to the next (very frustrating). I had devoured two sets of encyclopedias by age 11 or so. About the same time, I taught myself algebra from the radio circuit design books my father had left behind (he was a radio technician who died when I was 2). That was a mistake -- I only managed to pass second year algebra in school with a promise to my teacher that I wouldn't pursue any higher mathematics. While I did manage to be admitted to college, I couldn't keep up well enough to keep my student deferment and avoid being drafted into the military (I ended up volunteering for the U.S.Navy) to serve in Vietnam. I withdrew into myself to do mathematics then and ever since, earning a living any other way that I could (and I haven't done badly, in fact, for myself and my family). My only ambition, by force of circumstance more than conscious choice, is knowledge for its own sake.

Today -- and this is only in my late years -- it is a feeling of great accomplishment and triumph to even participate in a forum such as this, and be able to hold my own. I don't just know what I'm talking about -- I know *how* I know, because I have of necessity studied it many more times and more intensely than most, closing gaps of understanding through many many repeated iterations of the same material. Even I would find that tedious, if I didn't have to do it.

Everyone has their own life to live and their ways of learning, and I don't consider mine any better or worse than anyone else's. All I can say to you is that if you wish a life in science -- then live it. Don't talk about it, don't expect anyone to give you a formal introduction to it, don't invest a lot of confidence in people or institutions to give you help. If it means enough to you, you'll find a way. Write papers, prove theorems, apply for conferences (most have scholarships for those without means, whose abstract or paper passes peer review).

I don't consider myself "self taught." Though one can be trained to behave in a certain way, no one is ever taught anything. Learning can only be acquired by meaningful study and exchanges with other scholars in the field, and this is the case whether one has much formal education, or none at all. Scholars aren't scholars because they earned a Ph.D. Scholars are scholars because they practice scholarship.

Take care. Here's hoping that you find the will to pursue your goals no matter what.

Tom

Hello Tom,

I thank you very much for this answer.It permits to better understand you.

You know Tom, me also I have had a difficult life more my health. But the most important like you say is to continue to learn more still and always. I have still a lot of parano and this and that but I try to relativate.

I d like continue my universities. I must found the correct places in fact with good teachers.

I am going to search a good university with the good professors and I will learn and I will imrpove my works. I have learned a lot on net ,here on fqxi or on other platforms. But I must learn more.

I thank you Tom still for your sincerity and your advices.

Regards

sorry it was from me

Hello Tom,

I thank you very much for this answer.It permits to better understand you.

You know Tom, me also I have had a difficult life more my health. But the most important like you say is to continue to learn more still and always. I have still a lot of parano and this and that but I try to relativate.

I d like continue my universities. I must found the correct places in fact with good teachers.

I am going to search a good university with the good professors and I will learn and I will imrpove my works. I have learned a lot on net ,here on fqxi or on other platforms. But I must learn more.

I thank you Tom still for your sincerity and your advices.

Regards